The Ultra-Flexible WMD Definition

Despite finding saarin, mustard gas, and other chemical weapons, and despite various prison sentences for those who used them in Iraq or those who sold them, apparently, the only thing that would have satisfied the left that Saddam had WMDs would have been discovering a giant SPECTRE-sized Ken Adam-styled laboratory with men in white lab coats hard at work caught in the act. But as Elizabeth Blackney, AKA "Media Lizzy" notes on her Facebook page, my how the definition of WMDs has changed:

Just read Abdulmutallab charging docs. He's charged w/having a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Hmm. So, since we're using the 'criminal' standard, shouldn't all those thousands of pounds of mortars, bombs, missiles, etc in Iraq as WMDs? (leaving yellowcake out of it, since that was sold to Canada for energy)

Update: The left's flexible definition of WMDs brings to mind this passage from near the end of Orwell's 1984:

'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.'

Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything. O'Brien continued as though answering a spoken objection:

'For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'

No, but I suspect most of the left internalizes it, so they don't have to think about it. Let me check with Antonio Gramsci and get back to you.